Judge finds records admissible in Orie ethics case

Friday

Jan 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM

By Joe Mandak Associated Press

PITTSBURGH - Information seized from Republican state Sen. Jane Orie's phone, e-mail and computer records can be used as evidence at her trial on conflict of interest and other charges for allegedly using her state-funded staff to do campaign work for herself and her sister, Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Manning announced his decision at a pretrial conference on Thursday, though he told a county prosecutor and defense attorneys for Jane Orie and another sister, Janine, that he'll issue a written opinion on Monday.

Although the conference was meant to clear the decks of legal issues before the trial, two issues emerged regarding delaying the trial, which is scheduled to begin next month.

Manning had planned to start jury selection on Feb. 7 but pushed it back a day because the Pittsburgh Steelers are playing in the Super Bowl the night before.

"Win or lose, we'll start on the 8th," the judge quipped.

But the other issue could potentially delay the trial for months.

Jane Orie's attorney, William Costopoulos, told Manning by speakerphone that he may appeal the judge's ruling earlier this week rejecting the senator's claim that the state conflict of interest law used to charge her is unconstitutionally vague. Among other things, Costopoulos contends the law blurs the distinction between work the senator's legal staff does for constituents - which might make them want to re-elect her - and outright campaigning and fundraising, which her staff is alleged to have done routinely since 2001.

Costopoulos asked Manning to certify his appeal, meaning that the judge deems the issue so constitutionally important that the trial must be delayed until the state Superior Court can decide the issue. And even if Manning refuses, Costopoulos could still ask the higher court to delay the trial - though that's less likely under such an appeal.

Costopoulos also claimed that the Senate Republican caucus already plans to join the appeal, and that he's trying to enlist Senate Democrats and both House caucuses to join.

Assistant District Attorney Law Claus told the judge that to allow such an appeal would be bizarre.

"They're going to ask an appellate court to address a vagueness issue of a law they enacted?" Claus asked the judge. "I find that incredible, your honor."

But Senate Republican spokesman Erik Arneson said the caucus may join the appeal because the state Ethics Act created in 1978 has been expanded through the years.

"Our view is that both prosecutors and the public officials and employees subject to the Ethics Act would benefit from increased clarity. We are interested in getting to bright-line tests which are easily understood by the public and the people who serve them in the government," Arneson said in an e-mailed statement, adding that's why the Senate recently adopted its own ethics rules.

In rejecting the vagueness claim, Manning ruled Monday that it's up to a jury to decide whether the senator used state resources to benefit her or her family and said the law already contains a "bright line" that "separates work related to the official duties of the office from work related solely to campaigning for office."

Manning noted that Orie - and every other lawmaker - was aware that former state Rep. Jeff Habay, a Shaler Republican, was convicted of doing the same thing in 2005.

Manning said he'll decide whether to certify the appeal on Monday.

The judge also said he's considering taking testimony over extended hours and sequestering the jury in a hotel on nights and weekends. He delayed a final decision, agreeing instead to raise that issue with potential jurors when they're questioned.

A final wrinkle is the form the trial may take. Janine Orie's defense attorney, James DePasquale, said he'll likely ask next week that she be tried by Manning, not a jury. If that happens, the sisters will be tried together, with Manning returning the verdict for Janine Orie while the jury determines the senator's fate.

County prosecutors allege the senator and Melvin benefited from campaign work worth $70,000 to $130,000 from Orie's staff in the last decade, and that Orie would have paid at least an additional $200,000 if she had hired private campaign fundraisers instead of using her staff.

Melvin ran unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court in 2003 before she was elected in 2009. Janine Orie, suspended from her job as Melvin's aide, is charged with directing the senator's staffers to do work for Melvin.

Melvin has not been charged, though her attorney has acknowledged another county grand jury is investigating similar allegations against her.

The documents Manning allowed into evidence include spreadsheets, e-mails and other campaign materials dating back to Sen. Orie's special election victory in 2001, and re-election campaigns in 2002 and 2006. She was re-elected in November, months after she was charged.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.